User talk:Wilfredor/Archive 23

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search


File:Aeropuerto internacional de maiquetia pasillo.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Oscar_. (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

FPC

The guidelines say "Images (with the exception of animations, videos, and SVGs) of lower resolution than 2 million pixels (pixels, not bytes) are typically rejected unless there are 'strong mitigating reasons'." It does not say, "Images that are over 2 million pixels are acceptable for FP". It is saying that 2MP is so small that they will automatically and swiftly be rejected. A vote is simply about whether an image "will be highlighted as some of the finest on Commons", and everyone can give their opinion on that. I surprised at you arguing about this, because the only people who do argue are the newbies who come to FPC with a downsized 2MP image and complain that we don't all go wow. Being among the "finest" means just that. Can we please stick to judging the image rather than making political/economic arguments about some photographers having old cameras. It is still perfectly possible to take great FP quality images with a 12 or 14MP camera, and we have many such examples. But one has to recognise one's limitations. I don't take "bird in flight" photos with my medium-quality 55-300mm lens and then argue with everyone that they should accept that is all I have and I don't have some expensive 600mm $$$$$ Canon lens. Nor do I have a telephoto macro that would let me take great butterfly and insect photos. So I know I'm not going to be able to compete with "the finest on Commons" in those areas.

I do wonder sometimes if we should just scrap FPC for paintings. Nobody seems to take any notice of the guidelines. Perhaps QI is sufficient. After all, even copyright law says that the photographer is adding very little (and so deserves no copyright himself) and the real artistic value is in the painting.

But, The Photographer, I would appreciate that you stop thinking and saying nasty things if you are struggling to follow the conversation via Google Translate, or whatever you use. I certainly did not use "we" when referring to image size and it was unkind of you to say what you said. -- Colin (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Speaking in the voice of others.
Thanks for write this message in my talk. I want cite you in firs moment "we aren't going to feature all paintings on Commons", and of course maybe or maybe not and who is me to tell that affirmation. You could stop too of use "we" to support your arguments, maybe a better example "you will be locked if you keep doing this", and of course maybe or mayebe not and who are you to tell that affirmation? a admin? a WMF member?.
FPC economic reasons
There is a big problem in FPC, we have virtually no featured photos in poor countries, most are monuments of rich Western countries. Requiring large image sizes is indirectly require buying an expensive camera. In my view, FPC unrelated to buy large chambers but require all participants equally, the most that their cameras can offer. I have nothing against small images, however, as long as maximum resolution that the camera can do is shown. Because, You can not apply the same size rule to all images because you will stimulate the downsizing indirectly. --The Photographer (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Wrt the "we" stuff, I think you are just not understanding me at all. Look, I'm a native English speaker, so can you please just accept that you've got this all wrong. This isn't me projecting my opinion onto others, which is what you claim. It is the same as "we live on planet Earth". I'm not using "we" to "support my argument" but because it is grammatically the correct word to use when referring to the FPC forum -- promotion isn't done by one person's votes, but by a community. So it's "we".
I sympathise with your issues on camera cost, but the way to deal with it is a community fund-raising or donation activity like we did for Jee, not to bend the rules to make it easier for some people or some countries to get FP. I want to see great, detailed images coming from "poor countries". Not for mediocre images to be promoted because the photographer pleads poverty. Poco a poco takes great photos in poor countries but of course he comes from a rich country and has an excellent camera. Do you really expect FP to ask the photographer how much they earn? Should we handicap Poco a poco at FPC because he is rich? This is not what Commons is about. Let's stick to judging the images, not the people or the size of their wallets. -- Colin (talk) 17:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I think I'm not getting you understand me, the fact that the photographer is rich or not, is irrelevant. In fact, I helped raise money to someone you consider "a rich photographer" got money to buy his camera. What I meant is that I can not ask a photographer to a size that his camera can not offer, that is, technically criticize something that he can not solve. --The Photographer (talk) 17:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
For a start, I didn't ask Livio to take or upload a larger image. And secondly his camera is capable of taking a larger image. But I'm not interested in whether the photographer/nominator can "solve" the bad points, or improve on the average stuff. Perhaps that photographer can't do better. It isn't about the finest that Colin, or The Photographer or Livio can take. It's about the finest on Commons. If the finest on Commons is generally better, then a given image is not "among the finest". It doesn't matter who takes it or what gear they have.
Look at File:King's Cross Station Euston Road 2012-05-27.jpg. That was taken with my Sony A33 using the cheapest most plastic 50mm lens Sony makes. Hand-held - no fancy tripod or panoramic head. Stitched with Hugin, which is free, on a PC that was so slow I started the stitching and went to bed because it took hours. And that camera is a beginner's entry-level DSLR. Your D300 is old but is a professional quality camera costing many times more than my A33 when new. It isn't about the camera.
Consider some of the images that get nominated and which come from Flickr with no EXIF. We have no idea what equipment was used or who the photographer is. We judge the image, not the photographer. When I judge a photo of a painting, please let me compare that to other images on Commons, not to worry about what size the photographer's camera sensor is or how rich they are. -- Colin (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I underestand your point, btw, my old camera was donated by a locked user, and for when it was donated the used camera cost for this model was 300 $ USD, my talk is not about livio actually, I only want know when the image size is ok, for you, for example, I uploaded a picture today, however, I don't know if this size is ok for you, my question is because maybe your opinions are important to me. --The Photographer (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
Absolute pixel dimensions are less useful than how much detail is resolved (pictures do vary in size). I guess your picture was stitched and the top right isn't from a sharp frame. I sympathise as I have taken several stitched images where one or more frames were blurred and it kills it. I have better success by using a tripod and panoramic head and also by taking two images for each frame, in case one is blurred. But even then, I sometimes find the focus shifts on my lens, even though I fix it with Sellotape. I think your photo looks better than the Google Art Project, which often is high resolution but they don't seem to employ professional standards wrt accurate colours. There's plenty detail and sharpness in your picture, apart from that bad area. But, read the FP guidelines on artwork. Do you think this painting passes the guidelines, and do you think the community is actually putting those guidelines into practice. We need some method of judging what is the finest wrt artworks. I don't think it is working currently, and I'm not sure FP is the correct forum for such images. -- Colin (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I underestand your PoV about absolute pixel, btw, I will try rebuild that picture. --The Photographer (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

FP Promotion

This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Carica 15, São Paulo Downtown, Brazil.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Carica 15, São Paulo Downtown, Brazil.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for taking such great pictures. We have decided to use one to make our office more beautiful. Wikimedia Employee Rdmsf01 (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Backlit_Margarita_Island_Sunset_in_Las_Guevaras,_Venezuela_CaptureNX2.jpg |}

Thanks @Rdmsf01: , you could use Grandma's room too --The Photographer (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Maison in Rue des Remparts, Quebec City.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Pay attention to copyright
File:New York City (9073637510).jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that.

The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.)

Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans  asturianu  azərbaycanca  Bahasa Indonesia  Bahasa Melayu  català  čeština  dansk  Deutsch  Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎  English  español  euskara  français  galego  hrvatski  italiano  Lëtzebuergesch  magyar  Malti  Nederlands  norsk bokmål  norsk nynorsk  oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча  Plattdüütsch  polski  português  português do Brasil  română  sicilianu  slovenčina  slovenščina  suomi  svenska  Türkçe  Tiếng Việt  Zazaki  Ελληνικά  беларуская беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎  български  македонски  русский  српски / srpski  тоҷикӣ  українська  հայերեն  मराठी  বাংলা  മലയാളം  ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ  မြန်မာဘာသာ  ไทย  한국어  日本語  中文(简体)‎  中文(繁體)‎  עברית  العربية  فارسی  +/−

Regards, AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Parc de la Chute-Montmorency 001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. Beautiful landscape. --Ximonic 08:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! House in Quebec city 003.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --NeoMeesje 20:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! House close to Parc de la Chute-Montmorency 007.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
I like picture. But is English description correct one? --Miha Peče 12:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 Comment Right, the description needs to be changed, but Miha Peče, we don't need to change the nomination's status to "Discuss" and thereby move this to Consensual Review for that purpose. Please see Commons talk:Quality images candidates#Confusion over the use of "Discuss", and your participation in this thread would be appreciated. -- Ikan Kekek 20:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done Thanks --Wilfredor 16:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 17:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! House in the Parc de la Chute-Montmorency 009.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Wrong caption and category? We're not looking at falls. Same for 007.jpg above. -- Ikan Kekek 01:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
The french description was right, but now I think that it is fixed --Wilfredor 16:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 17:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

FPC File:Kapelle auf dem Michaelsberg - Untergrombach 09 - Deckengemälde Michael.jpg

Hallo Wilfredor, what do you mean by Please, use Artwork? --Llez (talk) 05:50, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

FP Promotion

This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Parc de la Chute-Montmorency 001.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Parc de la Chute-Montmorency 001.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Promenade Saint-Charles 11.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
 Support Good quality. --Nefronus 19:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bank of Montreal, Quebec city.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments From a bank to a souvenir shop. Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 21:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Please add street description and GPS coordinates of this building to image description. --GRDN711 00:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done @GRDN711: Thanks --Wilfredor 14:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 Support Good quality. --GRDN711 16:16, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chute-Montmorency, Quebec city, Canada.png, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)